Ethnography and ethnography

of communication

Long‐term immersion in a culture is a hallmark of ethnography, another primary

territory of qualitative research. Ethnography combines two ancient Greek words:

ethnos, which meant “tribe, nation, people,” and graphein, “to write.” As they write and describe
people and cultures, ethnographers tend to live intimately beside and among

other cultural members. Ethnographers focus on a wide range of cultural aspects,

including language use, rituals, ceremonies, relationships, and artifacts. In the history

of qualitative methods offered in Chapter 2, I reviewed famous ethnographies con-

ducted by Geertz (1973) and Malinowski (1922), that are realist in nature. Meanwhile,

critical ethnography “begins with an ethical responsibility to address processes of

unfairness or injustice within a particular lived domain” (Madison, 2012, p. 5). Such

influence shows up in excellent book‐length ethnographies in the fields of sociology

(e.g. Desmond, 2016), communication (e.g. Chawla, 2014), and anthropology (e.g.

Das, 2007).

Ethnography of communication (EOC), formerly known as ethnography of

speaking, is one type of ethnography. It was developed by Dell Hymes (1962) and

draws from many different intellectual traditions – including anthropology, folklore,

and socio‐linguistics. EOC researchers examine the patterned rules, codes, and

expectations for culturally distinctive speech communities, analyzing oral, spoken, and

nonverbal norms of interaction and language use. Key units of analysis for EOC

researchers are the communication event (e.g. a talk show), the communication act

(e.g. a specific sentence or a nonverbal signal such as a person who raises their palm

and says, “Talk to the hand”), the communication situation (a specific scene or setting

of communication, such as backstage), and the speech community (a group that shares

expectations for how communication practice should proceed, such as a talk‐show

audience). EOC researchers study patterns of communication and what those patterns

tell us about the people or group studied.

EOC is concerned with three central issues (Carbaugh, 2007). First, theorists in this
tradition examine the linguistic rules and resources used by participants. For example, in

some cultures, a woman who holds eye contact with a man for more than a moment is

considered flirtatious. Second, EOC researchers examine and compare messages across

different communication media. For instance, the researcher may examine how rules

about flirting are different in face‐to‐face interactions and in electronic text messages.

Third, EOC draws attention to the way communication reveals rules and norms of identity,

relationships, or culture. Through watching flirtatious communication, for instance, we

may better understand a culture’s norms about gender, age, status, and power.

EOC studies tend to highlight distinct cultural codes and rules for when and how to

speak, as well as the functions and patterns of communication in a particular cultural

context – such as a school, an organization, a nation, or an ethnic culture. Every group

has its own distinct preferences about communication competence and privileged

speech, and these preferences and rules vary across cultures. A classic example of EOC

is Philipsen’s (1975) research on “speaking like a man” in a town he called “Teamsterville.”

Using field records of speech behavior, informants’ statements, participant observation

fieldnotes, and tape‐recorded verbal interaction, Philipsen documented the rules for

male speech in this working‐class community. By focusing on cultural members’

reactions to “out‐of‐role” behavior, he was able to understand rule expectations and

their violations. The data bolstered the argument that mere talk was an unacceptable

means of expression for Teamsterville men who wanted to assert power or influence.

In contrast to physical aggression, speech was viewed in this community as ineffective

and unmanly, especially in interaction with lower‐status women and children.

Most EOC research has continued to focus on spoken words in various cultural

contexts and done so from an interpretive point of view. However, research has also

examined the way people discuss and evaluate mediated communication, such as in

television shows and computer use (Katriel, 2004). Some EOC research has also

incorporated poststructural considerations of power, such as Duff ’s (2002) examination of the

challenges and complexities faced by teachers as they attempt to foster respect

for heterogeneous cultural identities during classroom discussions. No matter the

context or topic, ethnographers can valuably pay attention to the habits, rules, codes,

and expectations for speech in their community of focus.

Ethics and institutional review boards (IRB)

Research invariably influences and affects other people, and therefore, taking account

of ethical considerations is imperative, including issues of permission, confidentiality,

participation, researcher relationship, and transparency. I introduce ethics here, but

also weave it into discussions throughout the book, especially in Chapter 5’s discussion

of textual harvesting, Chapter 6’s discussion of covert field roles in “following, forget-

ting, and improvising,” and Chapter 11’s discussion of practicing ethics as a criterion

for qualitative quality. A good place to start, though, is with some key questions; the

following are adapted from some first developed by Professor Kevin Barge (Scarduzio,

Eger, & Tracy, 2013).

● Permission: Who needs to give permission for the right to conduct the study?

● Confidentiality: How will the confidentiality of people’s responses be maintained?

What are the possible consequences of people’s participation? What steps do I need

to take to safeguard their participation?

Participation: How will people have the opportunity to withdraw from the research?

● Researcher relationship to the site: What is my relationship to the project? If I am a

member of the organization, how will I differentiate roles of being a researcher and

a regular member? What challenges are likely, given my dual roles and how will I

navigate this?

● Transparency: How do I maintain transparency in the research process from the

initial recruitment and selection of participants to the sharing of the research

results?

If you cannot adequately answer these questions in a way that fits with your ethical

commitments, then it’s important to keep searching for a more appropriate site or

sample.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the creation of human subject protections was prompted

by ethically questionable research practices. Institutional review boards (IRBs)

convene to ensure that the study’s benefits outweigh its risks and that the research has

the potential to improve society. Formal review boards and the specifics of human
subject protections vary by country and type of institution. The following

recommendations specifically relate to research governed by institutional reviews in

the United States. However, the discussion incorporates ethical considerations

applicable to qualitative research no matter where its geographical location.

Ethical research practice

The seventh characteristic I will discuss in terms of qualitative quality is that of

ethics. Ethical research practice is a thread throughout this entire book, related to

self‐reflexivity, access, participation, interviewing, fieldwork, transcription, and

writing. Ethical concerns have been covered in terms of institutional review in

Chapter 4, online lurking and textual harvesting in Chapter 5, covert fieldwork

in Chapter 6, problematic formulations in Chapter 8, and constructed vignettes in

Chapter 10. That said, ethics is so important for quality that there is good reason

to highlight it separately here. And some researchers even suggest that ethics

should serve as an umbrella for all the rest of the markers of quality I discuss in

this chapter (Gordon & Patterson, 2013). Practicing ethics in qualitative research

requires consideration of (1) rules and procedures; (2) the specific ethics of the

context we are studying; and (3) the ethics of working – sometimes quite closely and

intimately – with research participants.

Procedural ethics

Procedural ethics refer to ethical actions that are prescribed by certain organizational

or institutional review boards (IRB) as being universal or necessary. IRB requirements,

as discussed in Chapter 4, are:

● do no harm;

● avoid deception;

informed consent;

● privacy and confidentiality.

Beyond meeting institutional requirements for ethics approval, researchers should

ensure that they have demonstrated responsibility for the well‐being of the participants

in their written description of methods (Ravenek & Rudman, 2013).

We have already discussed the importance of transparency and honesty.

Procedural ethics likewise encompasses the importance of accuracy and of not

misleading the reader through omission, exaggeration, or inappropriate attribution.

Procedural ethics also refers to consent: “Weak consent usually leads to poorer data:

Respondents will try to protect themselves in a mistrusted relationship, or one

formed with the researcher by superiors only” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 60). Creating

and cultivating trust with participants is imperative. Procedural ethics require that

participants understand the research, provide consent for their involvement, and

know how to opt out.

Participants also have a right to confidentiality. To protect participant identity

and privacy, researchers should secure research documents (e.g. by storing them in

locked offices or on password‐protected websites) and strip them of identifiers

before sharing them with co‐researchers, assistants, readers, or audience members.

Stripping qualitative data of identifiable material can be tricky, and as discussed in

Chapter 4, readers can often identify unnamed participants via deductive disclosure.

Researchers should carefully consider how certain actors might be identified even if

their name is a pseudonym: if you share a story about an “elderly boss who stole

from the company,” participants may be able to quickly deduce identity if there is

only one “elderly” boss. Procedural ethics about confidentiality and anonymity

encourages researchers to carefully consider how they portray (or strategically

conflate) sensitive data.

Situational ethics

Whereas procedural ethics provide universal edicts for all research, situational

ethics refer to ethical issues that arise in specific contexts or populations. Everyone

can think of acts that may be ethical in some situations or with some people, but not

in other situations with other people. Some researchers believe that small measures

of deception are acceptable when their potential social benefits are clear – for in-

stance, when studying “up” the hierarchy as a method to disrupt hegemonic power

relations (e.g. Rollins, 1985). Secretly video‐recording a famous American preacher

whose sermons are regularly televised has different ethical implications from secretly
video recording an indigenous medicine man celebrating an intimate ceremony in a

developing world.

Situational ethics focus on reasoned considerations about the specific situation

(Fletcher, 1966). This approach suggests that researchers should treat predetermined

moral principles – such as those upheld by institutional review boards – as flexible

guidelines rather than unassailable edicts. A situational ethic like utilitarianism, with

its concern on “the greater good,” motivates researchers to ask whether the potential

benefits of the research outweigh its costs. Likewise, researchers may consider the ways

in which the study’s potential findings justify ethically questionable practices. Consider

This 11.1 raises questions that urge reflection upon such issues. Certainly, there are no

quick fixes here; but, as Ellis (2007) notes, a situational ethic advises that we “constantly

have to consider which questions to ask, which secrets to keep, and which truths are

worth telling” (p. 26).

Choosing the research materials

Identifying the empirical materials appropriate for specific claims or themes begins in

the research design and sampling process (Chapter 4) and continues in the analysis

process (Chapters 9 and 10). However, we often only determine what equates with “good data”
when writing the research report (Katz, 2002). Fieldnotes that seemed

mundane or irrelevant during initial coding may become extremely valuable as

arguments are constructed in prose. Photographs that you thought would be the

centerpiece of the research may be unusable due to lack of quality or picturing

something that breaches privacy concerns (Novak, 2010).

As you begin to write, remember that only data that are directly linked with the

study’s research question(s), goal(s), and purpose(s) should end up in the essay. Resist

the urge to tell the “whole story.” A scan of published articles suggests that typical

qualitative essays include only a small fraction of the data set – for example 1,000–

3,000 words of excerpted data (three to six double‐spaced pages) and just a sampling of

related visuals. Even in arts‐based research, a key criterion for quality is “concision”

(Barone & Eisner, 2012), and this refers to taking up a minimal amount of space and

avoiding redundancy. Don’t be surprised if it feels painful as you make decisions about

which empirical materials to include and which ones to cut. In what follows I provide
advice on how to choose and format your data.

5.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF ETHICS

Nowadays most universities or research institutions require all

researchers, including graduate and postgraduate students, to obtain

permission from their own institutional review board or human

subjects’ ethics committee if they are planning to conduct a research

project that involves people. However, many students and even

some faculty members say that the process of filling out an

application form for ethics approval is just more bureaucracy. They

complain that the process adds unnecessary work and time to the

research project.

I think this kind of response is short-sighted. It is absolutely vital

that you take ethics seriously as there are many important ethical

considerations that arise as soon as you start doing research

involving real people. The ethical procedures required by your own

institution could be vital to protecting yourself as well as the research

participants, not to mention the reputation of the university. Often

these procedures are also mandated by national law. The process of

applying for ethics approval also provides you with an opportunity to explain your research design to
others. Therefore I think all

qualitative researchers should appreciate the importance of ethics

and take their own institution’s ethics procedures seriously. This

chapter discusses some of the most important ethical principles that

are relevant for qualitative researchers, while recognizing that there

are ethical dilemmas that can arise from time to time.

Ethics is defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as ‘the

moral principles governing or influencing conduct’ or ‘the branch of

knowledge concerned with moral principles’ (Soanes & Stevenson,

2004). The first meaning is the one that is most relevant for us.
Hence, research ethics can be defined as the application of moral

principles ‘in planning, conducting, and reporting the results of

research studies. The fundamental moral standards involved focus

on what is right and what is wrong’ (McNabb, 2002: 36). This chapter

focuses on moral principles as they apply to qualitative researchers

in business and management.

For qualitative researchers, ethical practice is usually defined as a

moral stance that involves ‘respect and protection for the people

actively consenting to be studied’ (Payne & Payne, 2004: 66).

However, while we might be able to agree on some general

principles, in practice there can be many ethical dilemmas. For

example, sometimes there might be a conflict between protecting the

rights of the people you studied and the wishes of your sponsors or

funders. At other times there might be a conflict between your

responsibilities to your university and the wider public.

Most qualitative researchers would probably say that where there

is an ethical conflict, the researcher’s primary responsibility is to the

people being studied. The American Anthropological Association

says that an anthropologist’s paramount responsibility is to those he

or she studies. If there is a conflict of interest, these people must

come first (Spradley, 1980).

However, Westmarland (2005) raises the question of how to

balance one’s responsibility to the people being studied versus one’s

responsibility to the wider public. In her case, she came across

unnecessary force being used by the police during her study of

police behaviour. The alternatives were (a) colluding through inaction

when unnecessary force was used or (b) ‘blowing the whistle’ (Westmarland, 2005). She says it is
difficult to propose a set of

ethical guidelines and rules for such cases.

McNabb (2002) says that four practical ethical principles are most

relevant to research in public administration. These four principles

are truthfulness, thoroughness, objectivity, and relevance.

Truthfulness means that it is unethical for researchers purposefully to

lie, deceive, or in any way employ fraud. Thoroughness demands

that researchers should be methodologically thorough and not cut

corners. Objectivity means that researchers, especially in positivist

studies, should not allow their own values or biases to affect the

study. Relevance means that research should never be done for

frivolous, wasteful, or irrelevant purposes (McNabb, 2002).

5.2 IMPORTANT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES RELATED

TO RESEARCH

There are many important ethical principles related to research.

Some of these will now be discussed in more detail.

The Golden Rule

The golden rule is perhaps the most fundamental ethical principle of

all. The golden rule states that you should do unto others as you

would have them do unto you. Applied to research, this means that if

you are unsure about the ethics of a particular action on your part,

then it is a good idea to put yourself into the other person’s shoes

(Jackson, 1987). How would you feel if someone was taking notes

about your activities? How would you feel if they published

something about you without having the opportunity to review it

beforehand?

Maylor and Blackmon (2005) translate the golden rule for

researchers in business and management as follows: Most of the following rules build on this
fundamental ethical principle.

Honesty
Honesty is fundamental to all research. Without honesty, the entire

edifice and stock of knowledge on which a particular discipline is

built would come crumbling down.

Imagine if a researcher was able to publish a paper that contained

fictitious data and lies about the research methods. What would this

do to the reputation of the journal in which the paper appeared? As

soon as it became public knowledge, the reputation of the journal in

question would be in tatters. It is also very likely that the field itself

would be brought into disrepute. The fact that such a paper was able

to be peer reviewed and yet still be accepted would cast doubt on

the expertise of the editorial board of the journal. More far-reaching

questions would probably be asked about the reliability of the

knowledge in that particular discipline – can the stock of knowledge

in this field be trusted?

Hence, honesty is absolutely essential. All researchers should be

honest about their data, their findings, and their research methods.

Without honesty, all our claims to creating original knowledge or

discovering important insights go out of the window. However, this

does not mean that we cannot disagree about the meaning of our

data and our findings. As Payne and Payne (2004) point out: Plagiarism

Plagiarism is considered to be one of the worst possible sins in

academia. Plagiarism is the deliberate copying of someone else’s

work and presenting it as one’s own. The whole peer review system

of conference and journals, and the awarding of diplomas and

degrees at universities, is based on the principle that scholars only claim credit for what they
themselves have done. If material has

been copied or referenced from somewhere else, then these sources

must be properly acknowledged.

Unfortunately, the Internet has made it easy to plagiarize material

from someone else. While we tend to think of this happening only

with student essays, there are instances where the qualitative data

for theses, conference papers, and even journal articles have

subsequently been shown to have been plagiarized.

However, the Internet also makes it relatively easy to check for

plagiarism. For example, Turnitin (www.turnitin.com) is a software

product that can check papers and theses against more than 17

billion web pages, 200 million student papers, and various library

databases and publications. Many universities use this software

product to prevent plagiarism. I routinely put all of my graduate

students’ work through Turnitin.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is an important ethical principle in qualitative

research. Informed consent means that potential informants should,

as far as possible, ‘be enabled freely to give their informed consent

to participate, and advised that they can terminate their involvement

for any reason, at any time’ (Payne & Payne, 2004: 68). Of course, if

you are doing fieldwork, it is unrealistic to expect that you can obtain

the consent of everyone you might meet. However, if you are

studying a company, you should obviously obtain permission from an

appropriate manager to conduct the research. Also, if you are

intending to conduct interviews, then your interviewees should be

asked for their informed consent beforehand.

Some qualitative researchers argue, however, that informed

consent prevents researchers from uncovering corrupt, illegitimate,

or covert practices of government or business. For example,

‘prisoners’ rights are rarely a matter of concern to the authorities until

someone wants to do research on prisons. In effect, authorities can

protect themselves under the guise of protecting the subjects’

(Punch, 1986: 38). Punch argues, therefore, that some deception might be acceptable in some
circumstances if it enables you to

obtain data that are not obtainable by other means (Punch, 1986).

Hence, I think there can be a trade-off in certain situations

between informed consent and finding out inconvenient truths for the

public good. Such trade-offs are perhaps best evaluated on a case-

by-case basis and in discussion with a supervisor or colleague.

Permission to Publish

Often some of the data you collect will be owned by the people or

company. In this case it is essential to ask permission from the

appropriate person to use the material in your own work. In the case

of the data that you have collected yourself, this is not so

straightforward. If you are planning to use real names for the people

and the organization, then I believe it is a common courtesy to let

them know and have an appropriate person from the organization

read and comment on your work before it is published. I realize that

journalists will often refuse to provide a copy of an article before

publication, but I believe we, as qualitative researchers, should aim

for a higher standard. If you prefer not to seek any comments from

the people or organization concerned (perhaps because your article

or thesis might be seen by them as too critical), then another solution

is to use pseudonyms and change some of the other details to

disguise their identities. I think it is important to maintain

confidentiality if that was assumed or requested by the people being

studied. The identity of the organization should be disguised,

perhaps by hiding or changing any identifying information (Payne &

Payne, 2004).

On the other hand, you might find that a government department

or company wants to withhold consent to the publication of your

article simply because the results are politically unwelcome. In this

case you have an ethical dilemma – do you agree with the request

not to publish, or do you publish your findings for what you consider

to be the greater public good? I would think that in some situations

the rights of the public to know can sometimes override the rights of

the people and organization where you conducted your research. However, deciding the rights and
wrongs in any particular case is

tricky and has to be carefully thought through.

The Research Report

Maylor and Blackmon (2005) suggest three ethical issues should be

considered in relation to the write-up of a research project. These

are:

Maintaining privacy – make sure that confidentiality is

preserved.

Representation of data – make sure that you report and analyse

your data honestly.

Taking responsibility for your findings – make sure that you are

prepared to stand behind your results, particularly if your

findings are unfavourable (Maylor & Blackmon, 2005).

Action Research

Action research raises a number of ethical concerns (Clark, 1972;

Rapoport, 1970). One of the key issues relates to whose interests

are being served in an action research project. If the goals of the

researcher and client differ significantly, there could be difficulties.

Hult and Lennung (1980) suggest that a minimal ethical requirement

is for an action researcher to state clearly the value premises of his

or her work.

Another key issue relates to the issue of payment. If a researcher

is paid by the sponsoring organization, to what extent does this

influence the researcher to favour the client? At a minimum, I would

suggest that an action researcher should disclose any financial

support from the sponsoring organization.

Interviews and Fieldwork

If you decide to conduct interviews, participant observation, or

fieldwork, you always need to tell people at the start what you are doing, why you are doing it, and
what you will do with the findings.

Obviously it would be unethical to say one thing, but do another. For

example, if you promise informants that you will keep any

information they share with you confidential, then publishing any

information from them later would constitute a breaking of your

promise. If you misrepresent the purpose of your research, this too is

an ethical breach. Deception and misrepresentation should really

have no place in research in business and management.

One contentious issue in the literature on qualitative methods is

covert participant observation. Some researchers believe that covert

observation is wrong on principle, given that it appears to violate

ethical principles related to informed consent, invasion of privacy,

and the obligation to avoid bringing harm to subjects (Miller, 2006).

Other researchers, however, argue that it can be used if it is the only

way to obtain the data. The only way to study crime or corruption, for

example, is by covert means. Miller argues in favour of covert

observation in some circumstances, saying that to ban it entirely

‘places artificial boundaries on science and prevents study of what

potentially may be very important and consequential activities in

society’ (Miller, 2006: 17). My own view is that covert observation is

unlikely to be needed in most qualitative studies in business and

management. However, if there is a good scientific argument for its

use, then I tend to agree with Miller that the ethical considerations

should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (Miller, 2006). I would

not ban it outright, but instead use it with caution; make sure that you

discuss your project with your supervisor or a trusted colleague.

Online Ethics

As it is becoming more common for researchers to gather qualitative

data via the Internet, it is important to consider the ethical principles

that might be relevant to the online world. Consider the following

examples:

You send out a large number of unsolicited emails, but the

emails might be considered to be spam. You copy a website from the Internet for a legitimate
research

purpose; however, failing to get permission to do so might be

considered a breach of copyright by the owner.

You surreptitiously enter an online community in order to gather

data on community activities; however, some might accuse you

of spying.

Ethical Codes

Many academic and professional associations have ethical codes

that define what is or is not ethical behaviour in a certain field. For

example, the Academy of Management’s (AOM) Code of Ethics sets

forth principles that underlie the professional responsibilities and

conduct of the AOM’s membership:

The principles are guidelines for everyday professional activities. They

constitute normative statements for academicians, researchers, and

managers and provide guidance on issues that AOM members may encounter
in their professional work. (Academy of Management, 2008)

The AOM code also includes ‘enforced ethical standards’. Enforced

standards are those that individuals must adhere to when

participating in and carrying out the work of the AOM. The ethical

codes of AOM and other professional associations thus provide

ethical guidelines that complement, or are in addition to, the

guidelines provided by your own institution.

Taking a contrary view, Lincoln (2005) argues that institutional

review boards can exercise unwarranted constraints on qualitative

research. For example, such boards can limit the kinds of research

that qualitative researchers are allowed to do, in some

circumstances can pose a threat to institutional autonomy, and can

sometimes make inappropriate decisions. There is a danger that

such review boards may silence critical research projects that are

oriented towards opposing oppression and supporting social justice

(Lincoln, 2005).

Rubin and Rubin (2005) take a slightly more pragmatic stance.

They suggest that qualitative researchers should attempt to deal with the checklist requirements of
institutional review boards as best they

can. However, qualitative researchers ‘ought to keep in mind that

mindlessly following the rules of the IRB [institutional review board]

can lead to conducting poor and inadequate research without

increasing any protection to those being studied’ (Rubin & Rubin,

2005: 106). Where there are conflicting ethical principles, they

recommend determining whether the aggregate good to be achieved

will exceed the harm done (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).

The Law

In many countries there are laws that impinge on the uses of

qualitative data. For example, based on the privacy principles of the

European Union, the New Zealand Privacy Act makes it illegal to

collect data on people for one purpose, only to use it for another. It is

a legal requirement for all New Zealand universities and their

researchers to protect sensitive personal data.